JUDGMENT : Kum. Indira Jain, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 14.08.2015 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Nagpur in Complaint (ULP) No. 210 of 2003, thereby dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioners claiming arrears of difference of wages as ex gratia with effect from April/May, 2001 till 31032003 on the basis of minimum piece rates under the Settlements of 1985 and 1996. In addition to the difference of wages petitioners also claimed gratuity with interest at the rate of 12%. 3. The facts giving rise to the petition may be stated in nutshell as under: The respondent No. 2 is subsidiary Company under the control of respondent No. 1 Maharashtra State Textile Corporation Limited. Respondent No. 3 is recognized Union under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (for short, 'B.I.R. Act, 1946'). It was the case of the petitioners that on 05.06.1985 Settlement was entered into between respondent Nos. 2 and 3. As per the terms and conditions of the said Settlement minimum basic wages were fixed for the employees engaged on piece rate basis on the posts of Weaver, Reliever, Beam Gaiter and Tackler/Jobber of Weaving Department. 4. On 10.01.2001. State of Maharashtra took a policy decision to close down the textile mills functioning under the control and supervision of respondent No. 1. The grievance of complainants is that respondent No. 2 failed to close its establishment and consumed time deliberately with an intention to cause monetary loss to the workers. It is submitted that respondent No. 3 recognized Union did not take steps to contest the policy decision of State Government even after service of closure application and acted in an irresponsible manner. 5. Another grievance of petitioners is that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 executed Memorandum of Agreement dated 25092002 under Section 44(1) of the B.I.R. Act, 1946 and flouted Voluntary Retirement Scheme based on Gujarat pattern without considering Voluntary Retirement Scheme of employees made applicable by closing down the other Mills. According to the complainants respondent Nos. 5. Another grievance of petitioners is that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 executed Memorandum of Agreement dated 25092002 under Section 44(1) of the B.I.R. Act, 1946 and flouted Voluntary Retirement Scheme based on Gujarat pattern without considering Voluntary Retirement Scheme of employees made applicable by closing down the other Mills. According to the complainants respondent Nos. 2 and 3 acted in collusion and they were engaged in unfair labour practices as per Items 3 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, 'MRTU and PULP Act'). 6. The next contention raised on behalf of complainants is that in Memorandum of Agreement if basic salary of employees is less than Rs. 350/- then for the purpose of calculation of ex gratia minimum basic salary of Rs. 350/- will have to be considered and the benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme will have to be extended to the employees other than the employees working in Weaving Department. The complainants contended that they were working in Weaving Department and were drawing piece rate wages of Rs. 180/- for 26 days in a month. However, while calculating Voluntary Retirement Scheme benefits though they were entitled for wages at the rate of more than Rs. 350/as per the terms and conditions of Settlement they were paid less. 7. A grievance is also made by the complainants that respondent No. 2 was running total 7 Loom Sections in Weaving Department. The employees working in Weaving Department were directly connected with the production activities and they were getting annual increments since 1985. According to the complainants respondent No. 2 was responsible for reduction of production and respondent No. 3Union has not taken steps though less wages than prescribed under the Settlement were calculated. 8. It is further submitted that several representations were made to respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Though the complainants persistently raised voice respondent no. 2 did not extend Voluntary Retirement Scheme benefits to the complainants and they were constrained to file a complaint under Section 28 of the MRTU and PULP Act, before the Industrial Court. 9. Respondent No. 1 filed written statement and opposed the claim. According to respondent No. 1 basic wages actually earned by complainants were between the range of Rs. 205.05 and Rs. 9. Respondent No. 1 filed written statement and opposed the claim. According to respondent No. 1 basic wages actually earned by complainants were between the range of Rs. 205.05 and Rs. 372.90 on the basis of piece rated production given by them in the Weaving Department. The contention was that the average of basic wages of complainants comes to Rs. 267.50 only. However, as per the Memorandum of Agreement dated 25.09.2002. based on Gujarat pattern of Voluntary Retirement Scheme complainants were paid ex gratia amount of Voluntary Retirement Scheme at the rate of Rs. 350/- as their basic wages and though actual wages earned by complainants were on lower side they got the benefit of minimum basic of Rs. 350/. Referring to one of the employees of Weaving Department Mr. D.S. Gathibandhe, respondent No. 1 submitted that ex gratia benefit at the rate of Rs. 372.90 was extended to the said employee as he worked in the same department in which complainants were working and still yielded higher production. Respondent No. 1 denied alleged violation of terms and conditions of the Settlements and submitted that complainants themselves were responsible for less production in their department. 10. Considering the pleadings, evidence adduced by the parties, Settlements dated 05.06.1985 (Exhibit 93) and 11.12.1995 (Exhibit-94) and the other documentary evidence, the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that complainants are not entitled to receive difference in arrears of wages as claimed by them. In consequence thereof, complaint came to be dismissed. Hence this petition. 11. Heard Mr. Kalbande, learned Counsel for petitioners and Mr. Puranik, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 12. The learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that according to the Settlement basic pay of petitioners was more than Rs. 350/but while calculating ex gratia, wage structure given in the agreement was not considered by respondents. The submission is that ex gratia payment calculated on the basis of average wages is not in accordance with the Settlement and complainants cannot be held responsible for reduction of the production. According to learned Counsel in the Settlement of 1995 basic fixed for the posts held by the complainants was: Sr. No. Occupation Basic as per Agreement 1995 1 Takler Rs. 448.72 2 Reliever Rs. 389.24 3 Weaver Rs. 371.90 4 Beam Gaiters Rs. 397.50 5 Asstt. Takler Rs. According to learned Counsel in the Settlement of 1995 basic fixed for the posts held by the complainants was: Sr. No. Occupation Basic as per Agreement 1995 1 Takler Rs. 448.72 2 Reliever Rs. 389.24 3 Weaver Rs. 371.90 4 Beam Gaiters Rs. 397.50 5 Asstt. Takler Rs. 325.67 It is submitted that the respondents should have calculated monetary benefits considering the basic fixed as per 1995 Settlement and having not considered they caused huge monetary loss to the employees thereby engaging themselves in unfair labour practices. 13. In support of the submissions learned Counsel placed reliance on the following authorities : (a) Premier Automobiles Employees' Union and others v. Premier Automobiles Ltd. and others [1987 (55) F.L.R. 46]. (b) Oswal Petrochemicals v. Government of Maharashtra and others [1997 II CLR 472]. (c) Ramdeobaba Kamla Nehru Abhiyantriki Mahavidyalaya, Nagpur v. State of Maharashtra and others [2010 III CLR 39]. Based on the above Judgments learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that respondents have not adhered to the terms and conditions of Settlement and petitioners ought to have been granted ex gratia benefits as per their entitlement under the Settlement. 14. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that Settlement between respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was executed on 11121995. The said Settlement has not been challenged by the complainants. The learned Counsel submits that Settlement between respondent nos. 2 and 3 is binding on complainants and as the recognized Union has accepted the benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, complainants cannot claim monetary benefits contrary to the terms and conditions of Settlement dated 11.12.1995. 15. Another submission on behalf of respondents is that as per the said agreement complainants were not entitled to get basic wage more than Rs. 350/and they were given ex gratia amount in view of the terms and conditions of the agreement treating their basic wage as Rs. 350/under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The submission is that complainants have accepted the benefits without any protest and cannot be allowed to raise the issue of ex gratia payment as alleged in the complaint. 16. So far as the reduction of production is concerned, learned Counsel for respondents pointed out that complainants were responsible for less production still benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme were extended to them as were to be extended to the piece rated employees. 16. So far as the reduction of production is concerned, learned Counsel for respondents pointed out that complainants were responsible for less production still benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme were extended to them as were to be extended to the piece rated employees. In sum and substance submission is that no breach of any of the terms or conditions of the Settlement entered into between the parties had taken place and the Industrial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint. 17. Regarding the binding effect of terms and conditions of Settlement between respondent nos. 2 and 3 the learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivanand Gaurishankar Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills and others [ (2008) 13 SCC 323 ] and regarding binding effect of the terms of Voluntary Retirement Scheme reliance is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.K. Bindal and another v. Union of India and others [ (2003) 5 SCC 163 ] refers in HEC Voluntary Retd. Employees Welfare Society and another v. Heavy Engineering Corpn. Ltd. and others [ (2006) 3 SCC 708 ]. 18. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and upon considering the reasons recorded by the Industrial Court this Court for the below mentioned reasons finds that petitioners have not made out a case for interference in writ jurisdiction. 19. It is not in dispute that complainants were working in Weaving Department of respondent No. 2 Kalmeshwar Textile Mills. Though in the petition petitioners have stated that they were getting fixed wages, there is no whisper in the complaint or in the evidence that they were getting fixed wages. On the contrary pleadings raised in the complaint and evidence adduced by complainants clearly indicate that they were the piece rated employees. It is also not in dispute that on 11.12.1995 Settlement was entered into between respondent Nos. 2 and 3. On the contrary pleadings raised in the complaint and evidence adduced by complainants clearly indicate that they were the piece rated employees. It is also not in dispute that on 11.12.1995 Settlement was entered into between respondent Nos. 2 and 3. As per the terms and conditions of the said Settlement piece rate wages of employees for 26 working days came to be fixed as under : "Weaving Department (Piece Rates) Loom width-wise Auto weavers' Basic Piece Rate per 10 meters of cloth- Loom Width Rate (Paise/10mtr) Minimum Expected Efficiency 120 Cm/48" 8.24 80.00% 150 Cm/60" 12.2 77.00% 180 Cm/70" 16.3 74.00% 220 Cm/86" 23.8 71.00% 260 Cm/102" 32 68.00% From the above calculations it is apparent that piece rate wages of the complainants were fixed on the basis of production. It is not the case of complainants that they were paid less wages than agreed between the recognized Union and Management. 20. The grievance is regarding payment of ex gratia and monetary benefits as per Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Needless to state that law is well settled regarding the binding force of the agreement entered into inter se between respondent nos. 2 and 3. Even if complainants were not parties Settlement entered into between respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is binding on the complainants. From the terms and conditions of Settlement (Exhibit-94) complainants could not demonstrate that their basic was more than Rs. 350/. In this connection note under the head 'basis for calculation' is important and the same is reproduced as follows : "Note : If a worker has completed more than six (6) months in a year, it will be considered as full year. If the basic salary is less than Rs. 350/in that case for the purpose of calculation the minimum basic salary of Rs. 350/( Rs. Three Hundred & Fifty only) will be considered. The Operatives, Clerk, Technical & Supervisory staff & Officers who are not being paid House Rent Allowance since they are residing in Mills Quarters, while calculating their Ex gratia amount of House Rent Allowance payable on last salary drawn will be considered." 21. The close reading of the said note makes it clear that if basic salary is less than Rs. 350 in that case for the purpose of calculation the minimum basic salary of Rs. 350/was to be considered. The close reading of the said note makes it clear that if basic salary is less than Rs. 350 in that case for the purpose of calculation the minimum basic salary of Rs. 350/was to be considered. The complainants do not dispute that they were paid ex gratia based on the minimum basic salary of Rs. 350/. In this situation, this Court finds substance in the submission of learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that though complainants were entitled to actual wages on lower side they got the benefits of minimum basic of Rs. 350/. 22. The complainants have accepted monetary benefits without any protest. The learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that representations were made from time to time and complainants have protested the calculations on lower side. The evidence of complainants' witness to this effect is otherwise. The evidence of the witness examined on behalf of complainants shows that they have been paid monetary benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme on the basis of their piece rate wages as per the Agreements of 1995 and 2002. 23. In the above premise nothing more is required to hold that petitioners have failed to make out an arguable case. Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. Hence the following order : (i) Writ Petition No. 579 of 2016 stands dismissed. (ii) Rule is discharged. No costs.